Looking for a new camera. I have had the standard point and shoot digital's and I have ventured down the digital SLR road once before and spent an ass of money on glass and dont think I want to go down that route again. I guess I am looking for something in between. Been looking at the Nikon 1 J1 and the Sony NEX cameras as they seem to be in between the point and shoot and the SLR's. Any of you camera experts out there have any pointers or ideas? It will be used for close up family style pics and the usual vacation pics. Of course my toys (inclusing watches) will photographed as well. Thanks for any and all suggestions. Price range no more than $750. Preferably lower but exceptions can be made for the right product.
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
Need a new camera
- Thread starter wingshootin
- Start date
I would recommend the Nikon D3100 with it's standard "kit" (body and lens comes as a kit in one box) 18-55mm VR lens. That is the lens with which I took most of the photos I have posted on RWI. You don't need lots of different lenses anymore, the zooms have become good enough.
You get great versatility and high image quality and you can set the camera on auto to be as easy to use as any point and shoot if that is how you want to use it.
$600 on Amazon.com [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B003ZYF3LO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323226429&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yomC0EodL.@@AMEPARAM@@51yomC0EodL[/ame]
I think you get far more than the Nikon 1 system with the D3100 because it has a larger sensor.
I don't use point and shoot cameras anymore. My old Canon broke and I have not liked the image quality of the Nikon Coolpix cameras I have tried. The Canon S95 and S100 do get good reviews if you wanted to try a compact point and shoot camera.
You get great versatility and high image quality and you can set the camera on auto to be as easy to use as any point and shoot if that is how you want to use it.
$600 on Amazon.com [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B003ZYF3LO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323226429&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yomC0EodL.@@AMEPARAM@@51yomC0EodL[/ame]
I think you get far more than the Nikon 1 system with the D3100 because it has a larger sensor.
I don't use point and shoot cameras anymore. My old Canon broke and I have not liked the image quality of the Nikon Coolpix cameras I have tried. The Canon S95 and S100 do get good reviews if you wanted to try a compact point and shoot camera.
As you mentioned you had gone down the SLR route and found it didn't work for you, I would recommend one of the more advanced point & shoot cameras.
There is deffinetly a major jump in image quality between the entry level DSLRs and the High end point & shoots. But it's going to come down to your needs and your budget.
In the advanced Point & shoot market I would look at two camera's;
The Canon Powershot G12
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g12/review
and;
The Panasonic Lumix LX5
http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmclx5/review
The Canon is a bit bigger and heavier, but has a few more dials for easy and quick adjustments and has a large 2.8" flip out screen for easier viewing.
The Panasonic is a lighter and more compact body, but still has all the abilities that the larger G12 has, though with no flip out screen.
Both of these cameras do everything from full auto straight up to full manual. They also have the ability to shoot RAW (a type of file format best suited for post editing work).
(This gets long)
After these you could step up to a "Bridge Camera" like the Nikon V1, Panasonic GX1, or Sony Nex-5. But personally I don't recommend it.
The benefit of the Advanced Point & shoots is that they are extremely compact, with everything built in. Though they don't except additional accessories (besides flashes), most people using them aren't looking to build on their system.
Fulled sized and entry level DSLRs allow you to add lots of accessories and build your kit to exactly what you want. Though they have the disadvantage of being large and needing to carry more lenses as your kit and needs grow.
The Bridge Cameras carry the advantage of being small, but the disadvantage of you possibly needing a larger kit as you learn what you are doing, and then you just end up at the same point as a full sized DSLR, only with the issue of there not being as many lenses built specially for the cameras (yet).
I used to work in a camera shop (for 3 years) and saw way too many people getting a camera that they are only going to use 25% of. Most of the issue is that they will get something like the D3100 mentioned above, but then when it comes to going on a trip the owner will say, "well I just kind of want to saunter and don't really feel like carrying something that large around all day" and thus the camera gets left at home.
But you need to make decisions about whether or not a large camera will work with you and how you vacation and live. From there you can really narrow down what you need and want.
Just my two (hundred) cents.
There is deffinetly a major jump in image quality between the entry level DSLRs and the High end point & shoots. But it's going to come down to your needs and your budget.
In the advanced Point & shoot market I would look at two camera's;
The Canon Powershot G12
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_g12/review
and;
The Panasonic Lumix LX5
http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/compacts/panasonic_dmclx5/review
The Canon is a bit bigger and heavier, but has a few more dials for easy and quick adjustments and has a large 2.8" flip out screen for easier viewing.
The Panasonic is a lighter and more compact body, but still has all the abilities that the larger G12 has, though with no flip out screen.
Both of these cameras do everything from full auto straight up to full manual. They also have the ability to shoot RAW (a type of file format best suited for post editing work).
(This gets long)
After these you could step up to a "Bridge Camera" like the Nikon V1, Panasonic GX1, or Sony Nex-5. But personally I don't recommend it.
The benefit of the Advanced Point & shoots is that they are extremely compact, with everything built in. Though they don't except additional accessories (besides flashes), most people using them aren't looking to build on their system.
Fulled sized and entry level DSLRs allow you to add lots of accessories and build your kit to exactly what you want. Though they have the disadvantage of being large and needing to carry more lenses as your kit and needs grow.
The Bridge Cameras carry the advantage of being small, but the disadvantage of you possibly needing a larger kit as you learn what you are doing, and then you just end up at the same point as a full sized DSLR, only with the issue of there not being as many lenses built specially for the cameras (yet).
I used to work in a camera shop (for 3 years) and saw way too many people getting a camera that they are only going to use 25% of. Most of the issue is that they will get something like the D3100 mentioned above, but then when it comes to going on a trip the owner will say, "well I just kind of want to saunter and don't really feel like carrying something that large around all day" and thus the camera gets left at home.
But you need to make decisions about whether or not a large camera will work with you and how you vacation and live. From there you can really narrow down what you need and want.
Just my two (hundred) cents.
A DSLR with a zoom lens is going to be bulkier, especially in the sense that it "sticks out" farther and cannot possibly collapse to fit into a pocket. But it gives you better quality images and more options and you will be surprised at how light the D3100 with an 18-55mm zoom is compared to the old film SLRs. A point and shoot is more convenient to carry but has its own image quality and options limitations. Some people have both and carry around whichever one they fell like dealing with at the moment. For example, my wife wants her D3100 when she is around home or on a trip she wants to document with high quality photos. But when she wants a camera to fit into her purse she takes a point and shoot.
I have a D40, D70, D80, D90, D7000, D3100, and D5100 and a large number of Nikon lenses. So I understand the differences (pro and con) of most digital Nikon SLR's both current and back a few years. They keep getting better by leaps and bounds.
For example, the D70 came out in 2004 with a 6mp sensor and cost $1,000. It was Nikon's semi-pro model. Just two years later (2006) the D70 was replaced by the D80 with 10 megapixels (also $1,000). This D80 is the camera which took most of the photos I have published one RWI. That same 2006 the D40 (Nikon's consumer model) came out with a 6mp sensor for $600. Note a $400 drop in price in two years for the same size (6mp) sensor. Two years later (2008) the semi-pro D80 was replaced by the semi-pro D90 with a 12mp sensor (again for $1,000). Two years later (2010) the D90 was replaced by the semi-pro D7000 with a 16mp sensor for $1,000. Also in 2010 the consumer D3100 came out with a 14mp sensor for $700. Note the D3100 has 2mp more sensors than the D90 and costs $300 less. In 2011 the consumer D5100 came out with the same 16mp sensor found in the 2010 D7000 but cost only $800.
In January 2012 Nikon is likely to announce a number of new professional level cameras, the D4, D400, D800 and maybe a D900. Nikon may announce one or more of these cameras. They are expected to cost from $3,000 to $6,000: lens not included in that price!
Just how many megapixels do you think are contained by those large and sharp photos I have posted in RWI? 1 mp or less! Just how many megapixels do you think is displayed by your 55inch HDTV? About 2 mp! Amazing, isn't it? Check your computer monitor setting. Look under Adjust Screen Resolution and you will see the number of pixels horizontally and vertically. Mine is set to 2048 x 1150. So when I look at a photo full screen on my monitor how many megapixels am I actually viewing? 2048 x 1150 = 2,355,200 which is 2.35 megapixels! Did you realize almost every image you see from your new digital camera has to be drastically downsized before you can see it on your monotor, before you can print it at 8 x 10 inches and even before you can display it on a HDTV? And all this comes from an image sensor about the size of a postage stamp. It is much more amazing then most people realize.
The first Nikon digital camera used by pros was the D1 which came out in 1999. It had a 2.7mp sensor, cost $5,000 (not including a lens) and was used for full page photos in magazines such as Sports Illustrated. In 2003 the D2H replaced the D1 and is the camera which took many of the sports photos you have seen in magazines. It too cost $5,000 and had a 4.1mp sensor. The most commonly used Nikon professional camera for sports today is the D3s which came out in 2009. It has a 12mp sensor and costs $5,200 (without lens). The new Nikon professional cameras coming out in 2012 are expected to have sensors ranging from 18mp to 36mp. When would you ever really need a 36mp sensor? When you are making prints that are something like 3 feet tall and 5 feet wide for display in an art gallery.
Now, considering the sweep of recent Nikon digital camera history, to be able to buy a D3100 (including lens) with a 14mp sensor for only $600 is remarkable. I took most of my RWI photos with a 10mp sensor and had to downsize them to about 1mp so people on RWI could see them. Most of my RWI photos were shot with the same lens that now comes included with the D3100 for the $600 price. Do you need any more sharpness or ability to focus close? One could say that the Nikon D3100 is more camera than you really need and it is the least expensive Nikon you can buy today! Nikon has an amazing product line.
I am not dissing on Canon or other camera lines because I discuss only Nikon in this post. They too have a similar history. I just know about Nikon since I use Nikon equipment. My knowledge and experience are limited.
For example, the D70 came out in 2004 with a 6mp sensor and cost $1,000. It was Nikon's semi-pro model. Just two years later (2006) the D70 was replaced by the D80 with 10 megapixels (also $1,000). This D80 is the camera which took most of the photos I have published one RWI. That same 2006 the D40 (Nikon's consumer model) came out with a 6mp sensor for $600. Note a $400 drop in price in two years for the same size (6mp) sensor. Two years later (2008) the semi-pro D80 was replaced by the semi-pro D90 with a 12mp sensor (again for $1,000). Two years later (2010) the D90 was replaced by the semi-pro D7000 with a 16mp sensor for $1,000. Also in 2010 the consumer D3100 came out with a 14mp sensor for $700. Note the D3100 has 2mp more sensors than the D90 and costs $300 less. In 2011 the consumer D5100 came out with the same 16mp sensor found in the 2010 D7000 but cost only $800.
In January 2012 Nikon is likely to announce a number of new professional level cameras, the D4, D400, D800 and maybe a D900. Nikon may announce one or more of these cameras. They are expected to cost from $3,000 to $6,000: lens not included in that price!
Just how many megapixels do you think are contained by those large and sharp photos I have posted in RWI? 1 mp or less! Just how many megapixels do you think is displayed by your 55inch HDTV? About 2 mp! Amazing, isn't it? Check your computer monitor setting. Look under Adjust Screen Resolution and you will see the number of pixels horizontally and vertically. Mine is set to 2048 x 1150. So when I look at a photo full screen on my monitor how many megapixels am I actually viewing? 2048 x 1150 = 2,355,200 which is 2.35 megapixels! Did you realize almost every image you see from your new digital camera has to be drastically downsized before you can see it on your monotor, before you can print it at 8 x 10 inches and even before you can display it on a HDTV? And all this comes from an image sensor about the size of a postage stamp. It is much more amazing then most people realize.
The first Nikon digital camera used by pros was the D1 which came out in 1999. It had a 2.7mp sensor, cost $5,000 (not including a lens) and was used for full page photos in magazines such as Sports Illustrated. In 2003 the D2H replaced the D1 and is the camera which took many of the sports photos you have seen in magazines. It too cost $5,000 and had a 4.1mp sensor. The most commonly used Nikon professional camera for sports today is the D3s which came out in 2009. It has a 12mp sensor and costs $5,200 (without lens). The new Nikon professional cameras coming out in 2012 are expected to have sensors ranging from 18mp to 36mp. When would you ever really need a 36mp sensor? When you are making prints that are something like 3 feet tall and 5 feet wide for display in an art gallery.
Now, considering the sweep of recent Nikon digital camera history, to be able to buy a D3100 (including lens) with a 14mp sensor for only $600 is remarkable. I took most of my RWI photos with a 10mp sensor and had to downsize them to about 1mp so people on RWI could see them. Most of my RWI photos were shot with the same lens that now comes included with the D3100 for the $600 price. Do you need any more sharpness or ability to focus close? One could say that the Nikon D3100 is more camera than you really need and it is the least expensive Nikon you can buy today! Nikon has an amazing product line.
I am not dissing on Canon or other camera lines because I discuss only Nikon in this post. They too have a similar history. I just know about Nikon since I use Nikon equipment. My knowledge and experience are limited.
Here is a good deal on a D3100 with kit lens. Nikon refurbished for $500.
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/RI541538918.htm?utm_medium=dp&utm_source=KenRockwell
Or for $650 you can move up to a better Nikon D5100 and still say within your budget.
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/RI541538917.htm?utm_medium=dp&utm_source=KenRockwell
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/RI541538918.htm?utm_medium=dp&utm_source=KenRockwell
Or for $650 you can move up to a better Nikon D5100 and still say within your budget.
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/RI541538917.htm?utm_medium=dp&utm_source=KenRockwell
There has been some very good advice posted here for you to consider but the 'best' camera for you isn't the same as the best camera for the next person. Everyone has different needs and skills. It sounds like your previous experience with a SLR suggests that a larger camera with interchangable lenses is overkill for your needs right now. Have a look at this site: http://www.dpreview.com/
You can find reviews of all types and levels of cameras. Find one that meets your current requirements and budget.
I have a semi pro DLSR with three lenses that I just don't travel with anymore because of the weight of the kit. I still use that camera for any product shots I need because it has a sync socket and it can fire off my strobes but 3-4 years ago I bought one of the Leica/Panasonic Digilux series and I still love it. The only thing that I don't like about these is their short zoom ratio. So I'm in the market for a new higher end PnS with a longer tele myself.
You can find reviews of all types and levels of cameras. Find one that meets your current requirements and budget.
I have a semi pro DLSR with three lenses that I just don't travel with anymore because of the weight of the kit. I still use that camera for any product shots I need because it has a sync socket and it can fire off my strobes but 3-4 years ago I bought one of the Leica/Panasonic Digilux series and I still love it. The only thing that I don't like about these is their short zoom ratio. So I'm in the market for a new higher end PnS with a longer tele myself.
- 29/3/09
- 15,272
- 10
- 38
Just in case someone is interested in photography beyond the type published on RWI. I think the best DSLR now on the market is the new Nikon D4 but it costs $6,000 without any lens and you cannot even get one until late next month! You will see a lot of pros shooting this Nikon D4 camera over the next year. Soon to be announced will be the new Nikon D800 and after that the new Nikon D400. They will all be great for certain uses and needs. The cheapest will be the D400 and it will cost about $2500 without any lens. All of these cameras will have capabilities far beyond what is needed for good close ups of watches.
I have previously owned an entry level DSLR to test the water. Although it took some great shots, and I spent a few quid on extra lenses, the thing failed on me out of warranty. So I got a bit dis-heartened with DSLRs and replaced it with a Canon G12. I haven't looked back.
No more fluffing about with lenses and I have bought a Canon flash to use in the hot-shoe. It gives incredible results and spends most of its life in Auto mode.
Good luck with your search.
No more fluffing about with lenses and I have bought a Canon flash to use in the hot-shoe. It gives incredible results and spends most of its life in Auto mode.
Good luck with your search.
Definitely recommend the Canon g12. I am a DSLR enthusiast and mostly use DSLR's - but I have a G12 that I keep in my camera bag for times when I don't want to take my bigger kits around, or for when I see something and need to take a really quick picture.
If you're not looking to develop your photography skills to more advanced levels, but are just wanting to take really great photos, the G12 is about as good as they get.
If you're not looking to develop your photography skills to more advanced levels, but are just wanting to take really great photos, the G12 is about as good as they get.
Since I have always been a Nikon SLR shooter I don't keep up with Canon models. It is hard enough to keep informed of the changes Nikon is making. However, Canon and Nikon are about equal in terms of quality. Some Canon models beat their corresponding Nikon models and some Nikon models beat their corresponding Canon models. As a general rule Canon point and shoot (non detachable lenses) cameras have produced better images than Nikon point and shoot cameras. The G12 has a very good reputation. But it won't be a versatile as a DSLR and won't focus as closely.
I agree, I don't think there is a huge differnce in quality between Canon and Nikon. Individual models vary, but overall they offer the same quality in both lenses and bodies.
I don't know a lot about the Nikon counterparts, but I think the Canon 550D and 600D are amazing entry level cameras for people looking to get a DSLR. Rarely will anyone who doesn't get paid to take photos need anything more than what these two cameras offer (only big difference between the two is battery life - 600D lasts 30-50% longer than 550D).
I don't know a lot about the Nikon counterparts, but I think the Canon 550D and 600D are amazing entry level cameras for people looking to get a DSLR. Rarely will anyone who doesn't get paid to take photos need anything more than what these two cameras offer (only big difference between the two is battery life - 600D lasts 30-50% longer than 550D).